Civil Rights of HINDU Women.
Hinduism has a patriarchal system, and a son is valued higher than a daughter. But unlike the impression given by several groups, women do have social and economic rights. That their rights given to them by religious lawmakers themselves, had been trampled down in subsequent ages, is hardly the fault of the lawmakers. Unfortunately, many Hindus themselves seem to be ignorant of these laws. Again, the sacred lawbooks or Shastras are not considered to be divine revelations like the Ten Commandments. They are simply collections of customs of various communities and so they vary from region to region and age to age. 'Sadachar' [customary usages of a community and practices followed by good people of the community] often over-rides scriptural law. Due to this same reason, it is held that no law is immutable. Laws change to meet the requirements of changing times. Therefore, when we come to the rights of women, it is not a simple matter of female oppression under religious patriarchy. But without a clear understanding of the past, the struggle for women's rights cannot be fruitful. So this page will try to give a quick over-view about female rights and the general position of women in Hindu India (excluding however the modern age), for the benefit of all those --- particularly Hindus --- who wish to learn about it.
Female education. . Marriage and divorce. Polygamy . Widow-remarriage . Second Marriages . Polygamy . Restrictions.
Education in Hindu India was divided into two parts --- religious and secular. Religious education means study of the Vedas after the student is properly intitiated through the 'sacred thread' ceremony, while secular education consisted of all kinds of arts and sciences. There is naturally no treatise on the extent and nature of female education; however there are scattered references in the literatures of the period which gives us some idea. We find that originally women were allowed to have religious education and became religious leaders. However as time passed, the priestly class declared that religious texts and rituals are their province alone. This naturally meant that women as clerics and teachers disappeared, though noble families continued to educate their daughters. They emerged as religious leaders again during Bhakti movements in middle-ages. Today there are many orthodox hindus who still think that women should not be allowed to even study Sanskrit; however there is now once again a growing number of female priests of all castes all over India who conduct religious ceremonies. [for more on religious education for women ...].
As regards secular education the position was far better. A girl from a good family was expected to be accomplished in various branches of learning. Singing and dancing in particular were thought to be particularly woman's domain. But they were also allowed learn and debate philosophy, logic, astronomy, maths, history and many gained great fame for their poetic works, including religious texts. Possibly because no one was interested, no Sanskrit works by women have survived, though it is reasonable to assume that they wrote many. However the vernacular languages have a rich storehouse of women authors. As late as the 18th century, we have mention of women at royal court of Thanjavar (not women of the royal family, but apparently holding some kind of offical status as writers for the court) as 'ashtavadhanam', or someone who can carry out eight intellectual activities simultenously. There are also stories in several regions about learned women who were a match for any man.
However, two things must be remembered when speaking of female education in Classical and later Hinduism. First is that the extent and type of education varied with the liberal/patriarchal mindset of the region and families involved. Being a good wife and mother was a woman's first duty; her primary education was therefore in housework. So naturally, many families did not bother with educating their daughters as they did their sons. Secondly, class is involved as well. Women from the royal and richer noble families had greater scope for education and practising their accomplishments. Sometimes middle-class fathers also educated their daughters. The lower classes --- men and women both --- had hardly the time or the money for scholarship of any kind. From the available material, or scarcity of it when it comes to women as scholars, theologians, philosophers, and writers of scientific works, we can conclude that ordinary women were not given the same education as men; nor had the scope to make themselves famous as men had. By the 19th century, nearly all over India, female education was disapproved of among the respectable middle and upper classes; so much so it was held that even if a husband tried to educate his wife, it was the wife's duty to resist such useless unwomanly activities. Though many women were educated, and some gained fame, but they were the exceptions.
Stories of two women scholars are very popular in legend. One is Maitreyi, wife of sage Yajnabalka. Yajnabalka in old age declared that since all his children have grown up he wished to retire and would divide his property among his two wives. The younger wife Maitreyi however refused and instead asked for knowledge of Eternity. Then follows a lenghty discourse between the two. (Similarly in myth we see Shiva educating Parvati and Parvati educating Shiva in turn about women). This shows that women were allowed to be students and it was not thought reprehensible if a woman showed eagerness for education. Another scholar is Gargi. She was well-known for her accomplishment and participated in competitions among scholars (the equivalent of today's seminar-circuit). She is depicted as a teacher. In the stories she fearlessly challenges male scholars and most importantly, no one questioned her right to do so or was shocked by her 'unfeminine' conduct.
As in every culture women in Hinduism were reared up for marriage, whether she was educated or not. A daughter was regarded as the rightful property of the future husband; the parents' connection with her was temprary. The father is merely looking after the girl until the son-in-law can claim her. The sunnum bonum of her life was motherhood; in particular being the mother of sons. Being barren was a calamity for her as was giving birth to only daughters. Nevertheless, though the social situation and laws were weighted in favour of men, women were also acknowledged as human beings with 'inalienable' rights.
We get an excellent picture of the establishment of marriage as a patriarchal social contract in Mahabharata. The sage Dirghatama was born blind. In his old age, his wife told him that she would no longer support him financially. Enraged he cursed, "from today I establish the law that women must always be subject to their husbands". In ancient days, there was a sage called Swetaketu. One day as he was sitting with his parents another man came and tugged at his mother's hand saying, "Let us go". Swetaketu was furious to see that his mother went away with another man even in his father's presence. Then his father told him "do not be angry; this is the established law. Even if a woman has relationship with thousands of men, she does not become guilty of irreligiosity." Swetaketu then forcefully established this law that if a woman leaves her husband for another man, and if a man leaves his virtuous wife for another woman, both will be sinners. Obviously these stories are memories of an ancient past, when no such thing as marriage or heirarchal relationship between wife and husband existed.
Originally, girls were married when they attained puberty. Both legends and literature testify that girls were adult when they married, since one of the main purposes of marriage was to have children. However as time went by, the preference came to be for child marriages. The reasons were many. An adoloscent girl is bound to be attracted to the opposite sex and bring down scandal. The fact that there is a whole category of children called 'kanin' or born during maidenhood, is proof that unmarried girls were sexually active. Since girls over the age of 15 were allowed to choose their husbands, frequently their choices would not be approved of by their parents. Again, since brides went to live in their husband's house, this allowed them to become familiar with their future home: the little girl would frequently stay for a long time in the in-law's home, so that when the time came for her to reside there permanently it would not be an alien place. However, much depended on the household --- the child-brides were forced to labour in housework in many cases and treated cruelly by her in-laws. In fairness, we must note that society was equally suspicious of adoloscent boys and so arranged for their marriages as quickly as possible. (For example, a Maratha noble's wife in 16th century complains that since their son has reached twelve years of age, he is already past the normal age for marriage!) Child-marriages, it was felt, enabled both the boy and the girl to have a legitimate sexual outlet when they attained puberty. However many texts also advocate a man marrying only brides far younger than him, since such a bride presumably is easier to train. Ultimately by 19th century, fathers began to worry about getting their daughters married by the time they were five; an 18 year old unmarried woman was cause for pity and disgrace to her parents.
However if we look at the lawbooks, we see that women were not supposed to be completely deprived of choice when it came to marriage. All the law books clearly states, "Three years after menstruation, a maiden is free to choose her own husband". Some of them goes on to elaborate that though a maiden is normally subject to her parents' authority, in this case, it is obvious that the parents have failed in their duty to find a suitable match for her; so she will wait for three years to give her parents opportunity and then make a choice herself. Therefore, if she married over her parents' objection, it is not a sin. Similarly, Manusamhita, the most honoured text directs, "It is better that a daughter should stay in her father's home all her life rather than be given to an unworthy husband". Unfortunately, the pressure to get one's daughter off one's hand, proved to be a greater impetus. Moreoever, the law repeated in many shastras, "Three years [in some texts, three times ] after the begining of menstruation, a maiden gains overlordship over herself" led to many girls undoubtedly marrying husbands whom her parents did not approve of, and so it was felt that it was better to marry her off before she made an unsuitable match.
According to the Hindu shastras there are eight legitimate types of marriages. In four of them, the father gives away the daughter to a selected husband with dowry. In the fifth the groom pays money to the bride's family and to the bride herself, that is, bride-price instead of dowry. In two more types of marriages, the marriages had been carried out by force [like kidnapping or during war] or fraud [by drugging etc]. The eighth type is Gandharva vivaha or love marriage. Here the man and woman unite freely of their own will due to love; no rites are required other than their mutual vows, even if sworn in private; therefore neither the groom's nor the bride's kin is obliged to pay dowry. Another type of marriage frequently mentioned in myth and history in connection with royal families is Swayanbar. Princes of various states would assemble in the bride's palace in a hall. The princess would inspect each man as her maids recited his lineage, wealth and accomplishments. After looking over them all, she would garland the man she preferred. Though the choice had to be accepted by all suitors, sometimes it led to ill-feelings and outright bloodshed. Thus we see that Hinduism sanctions both arranged and love marriages, and allowed adult women complete independance in choice of husbands. [For more details ...].
Also it seems that even in early middle ages, intercaste marriages were allowed. Marriage of men of higher castes and women of lower castes was called anuloma marriage. Marriage of women of higher castes and men of lower castes was called pratiloma marriage. The orthodox lawmakers however were not in favour of mixed-caste marriages since it upset the social hierarchy. For example they said that the offspring of a Brahmin or priestly caste woman and a Sudra or the lowest caste of labourers can only be an untouchable. Some lawmakers argued that if such marriages take place in succession for seven generations then ultimately the offspring gains Brahmin status. At any rate, by late middle ages such marriages had vanished altogether, and was the sure route to excommunication, if not death. Even liasons were frowned on, though many uppercaste men kept lowercaste concubines. Occasionally, destitute highcaste widows or deserted wives became the concubines of lowcaste men. Today the situation is reverting to the earlier ages as regards intercaste marriages though one's caste is generally preferred; unfortunately in more backward uneducated regions the prejudice is still strong enough to lead to murders of the lovers involved.
Similarly twelve types of children are considered legitimate by Hindu law, which grant astonishing sexual freedom to women.
Though marriage was held to be an indissoluble bond, the earliest lawmakers were a practical lot. They therefore laid down clear rules for divorce and remarriage. The most famous verse in this context, which neatly summs up all the conditions is "If the husband is missing, dead, has become an ascetic, impotent or excommunicated from his community/caste, then in these five cases, the wife will take another husband". The law therefore does not merely refer to widow-remarriages; it refers to when it is lawful for the wife to leave her husband and take another husband while the first was still living. That women did divorce and remarry is also evident from Arthashastra, the secular constitution of the Mauryan empire ( c. 3 A.D or later). It is even more generous --- "the husband who is of low character, one who is an exile or lives in another country, one who is a traitor, one who is a murderer, one who has become an outcaste and one who is impotent : such husbands can be deserted by their wives". Even if none of these conditions obtain, then in the case of love marriages, marriages where bride-price is paid and forced marriages, divorce is permissible. However, if only one party wants the divorce, then it is not granted. Here we see that women and men are on an equal footing. Even if the husband wishes to get rid of his wife he cannot do so, unless the wife also wishes it. Divorce can only be obtained if it is unilateral. However the wife, like the husband, has the right to intitiate the divorce preoceedings. Both religious and secular lawmakers made arrangements for the maintainence of divorced and separated wives by the husband. Again, repeated reference is made about the property of women who had married more than once; the lawmakers were very concerned about her rights to the previous husband's property and the share of her sons.
However, in later ages, this practice came to be disapproved of in case of the twice-born castes. Many later writers insisted that even if one's husband was mad or afflicted by leprosy or a drunkard, a good wife should not leave him. One lawmaker forbids the wife to desert her husband even if he is made an outcaste by his community. In the case of widows, it was recommended that they either enter the fire, or if unable to do so to lead a life of strict asceticism. In case a woman makes a second marriage or takes a lover, this temptation is held out before her: by remaining faithful to her husband's memory, she can ascend to heaven even if she has no children to pay final respects and has not conducted various religious ceremonies which men are required to do. Burning oneself on the husband's pyre was thus not a legal or religious requirement; indeed a certain set of penances is recommended for a widow who falls off [obviously in this context jumps off] the pyre, meaning that she is not obliged to remount the pyre again. However the belief was firmly implanted in everyone's breasts that a woman who does this becomes a goddess and many women gladly sacrificed themselves.
The case of the missing husbands seemed to have caused some confusion so that lawmakers spent time clarifying the situation. However different lawmakers have given different time frames. But it is agreed that the waiting period for wives depend on their caste and maternal status. The higher the caste of the woman involved the longer she would have to wait before taking another husband. This means that the Sudra woman has to wait least (perhaps only one year), while for the Brahmin woman the wait can be as long as seven years. If they had children then the waiting period doubled. If any news was recieved during this period that their husbands were still alive, then they had to wait some more. But if the marriage had not been consummated, then the wife at most shall wait for a year. Arthashastra, more accustomed to dealing with practical laws, adds that if the wife becomes destitute then for the sake of livelihood she can marry again without having to obey the above restrictions, or she can have a child by another man without marrying him.
Unfortunately, the ancient Hindus were not so progressive as to allow polyandry. From certain clues it seems that in Vedic ages, polyandry was possibly the norm along with polygamy. In legend too we have some examples, the most famous of which is the epic heroine Draupadi, who had five husbands at once. But in historical times, we find only polygamy. The effect of polygamy was usually disastrous in a houshold since the wives conspired to snare the husband's attention and get sons whom he would favour more. The rivalry was bitter and wives went to great lengths to discredit their co-wives and other children. This was particularly worse in royal households. Even in Ramayana, we have the eldest queen bitterly speaking of the humiliations she suffered because a younger queen was the king's favourite wife. Strictly speaking, casual polygamy is not permitted in Hinduism. "If the wife is barren then in the 8th year, if she produces only dead sons then in the 10th year, if she produces only daughters then in the 11th year the man will take another wife [to get a son]". but in all cases the first wife has to be given maintainance and liquid funds. However we do not know how strictly this law was followed. No doubt, many men married simply because they wanted to. However this contingency also was provided for. If a husband wishes to marry another wife merely out of lust, (ie. he has a wife who has given him a son or he marries without waiting out the stipulated time-period) he is ordered to "satisfy the first wife with as much money as she desires". The religious laws also threaten men who thus humiliate their virtuous wives with hell-fire. Since Arthashastra too lays down this code, perhaps the laws were enforced strictly. However, from the middle ages onward, rich men or men belonging to highest castes habitually married many times, surely without having to pay any great penalty. The later lawbooks dealing with inheritance laws make that amply clear. And of course no laws were applied to the king; he married as many times as he pleased in addition to keeping concubines, though the appointment of the formally anointed queen whose son will be the crown-prince was a different matter altogether. But later on more conditions were added : if the wife is a drunkard, of a bad character, constantly ill, quarrelsome and despises her husband, then the man can marry again immediately. The only consolation for a woman was that even if she could not have many husbands at once, she could have them serially. That this happened frequently can be deduced from a verse repeated in some lawbooks: "If a woman has many sons, by many different husbands, then she must give to each son his respective father's property". Today polygamy is prohibited among Hindus.
One of the commonest misconception about Hindu widows is that they are forbidden to remarry and must committ sati. This is not so. Of course a number of widows did committ sati, but originally it was simply a voluntary act. Though it later came to be regarded as an act of great merit, the majority of widows did not committ sati. However among the upper castes it soon became a mark of prestige to boast of having a sati. The men genuinely thought that the woman would go to heaven and purify her natal and marital kin of sin. Also, sati meant that a widow did not have to be given her share of property or even maintainance by her husband's kin. Therefore the widows were sometimes persuaded to immolate themselves --- many indeed did it willingly believing they would become goddesses --- or drugged and then burnt. Again, by the late middle-ages the lot of widows in upper caste households were sometimes so miserable that they preferred to commit suicide in this manner. However the lower castes allowed their women greater freedom; widows were not considered inasupicious and remarriages were allowed. But the upper classes gradually stopped remarriages of widows under any circumstances because of two reasons: (i) they preferred their wives to remain their property even if they themselves no longer existed; (ii) it meant that the family property would remain intact. Sometimes the lower castes, in order to raise their group status, would imitate Brahmin norms and impose similar restrictions.
However when we look at early period of Hindu history we find that widow remarriages were the norm, than the exception. Pandit Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar persuaded the British to pass the widow-remarriage bill by proving that marriages of widows are religiously sanctioned in Hinduism. The 1901 census showed that only 10% of Hindus, the uppercastes were affected by the law on widow-remarriages. However the British in their propaganda left out the other 90%, partly because they interacted mostly with the ruling classes and mostly because they wished to convince everyone including Indians themselves that Imperialism was good for the morally depraved Hindoos.
In Vedas we have these funeral rites, which probably gave rise to the idea that sati was practised always, but which unambigiously asserts widow remarriages:
O woman! You are lying by the side of this dead husband. Rise up and come to the world of the living; unite with a second husband who wishes to marry you and gain wifehood according to usual law. (Rig Veda, X: 18: 8)
Whoever having gained a former husband then gains another later one --- if they shall give a goat with five rice dishes, they shall not be separated. Her later husband comes to have the same world [in the afterlife] with his remarried spouse who gives a goat with five rice dishes with the light of sacrifical gifts. ( Atharva Veda IX, 5 :27-28)
This woman choosing her husband's world lies down by thee that are departed, O mortal, continuing to keep her ancient dharma; to her assign thou here progeny and property. Get up O woman, to the world of living; thou liest by this one who is deceased: come to him who grasps thy hand, thy second spouse, thou has now entered into the relation of wife to husband. I [the speaker of the verse] saw the maiden being led, being led about alive, for the dead; as she was enclosed with blind darkness then I led her offward from in front. (AtharvaVeda, XVIII: 3:1-3)
The post-Vedic holy texts give proof of Second Marriages:
"If the husband is missing, dead, has become an ascetic, impotent or excommunicated from his community/caste, then in these five cases, the wife will take another husband". (Narad, Manu, Parashar)
When a woman deserted by her husband or a widow, according to her own wish contracts a second marriage with another man and produces a son, then the son of that union is called Pounorbhav. (Manu)
A woman who had been married but is yet a virgin marries again, she is called the first Punorbhu. If a woman who deserts her husband and consorts with another man returns to her husband then she is called second Punorbhu. A woman who remarries after the death of her husband is called the third Purnorbhu. (Narad)
A woman, whether a virgin, or not a virgin, who marries again is called Punorbhu. (Yagnabalkya)
A woman who leaves an impotent, excommunicated or insane husband, or after the death of her husband, takes another husband is called Punorbhu (Bashistha)
When a woman leaves her impotent or excommunicated husband and remarries then her son is called Pounorbhav. This son is the child of the biological father. (Katayan)
If a woman becomes a widow as a child, or is deserted by her husband without cause, then any man can take her a second time in marriage. (Bramhapuran)
If the husband is missing, has died, has renounced the world, is declared impotent, or is excommunicated, then it is the law that women can take a second husband. (Agnipurana).
Similarly, in Arthashastra, it is taken for granted that widows will marry a second time if they want to. The book therefore is more concerned about the various types of second marriages their inheritance rights in these cases.
When we look at society's attitude towards 'fallen' women, it becomes clear that this attitude took a long time to develop. The earlier the lawgiver is, the more liberal he is about adultery and illicit relationships. For a long time, illegitimate children born to an unmarried woman or to a married woman were deemed by law to be the legitimate offspring of the husband and legal heirs to his property. Then it was declared that though they are to be considered his legitimate children, they are not his heirs. Finally, this law was abolished altogether as society grew harsher. Similarly at first adultery by the wife was not taken as a matter of grave concern. The reason is that women were held to be always ritually pure. Again and again, the sacred texts declare, that women and earth cannot be permanently impure, though they may become temporarily impure by bodily reasons or otherwise. Nothing handled by them can be impure. The reason for such purity --- which was not the case for men --- is an astonishing one: menstruation! Every month through this blood, whatever impurity the woman may have accrued is washed away. Therefore after each monthly cycle, the woman becomes completely pure. Therefore even if a woman committs adultery, she is washed clean of her sins once the cycle has occured, "like refined gold", as one sage puts it. However later lawmakers felt that such automatic cleansing upsets the moral fabric of society. A passage in Mahabharata concludes that if a wife committs adultery then it is the husband's fault, anyway. But gradually other laws were established. At first the woman was pardoned after undergoing a period of penance. Then it is laid down that the husband can set her aside or divorce her, but must also maintain her, until she remarries. One later sage declared that an adulterous wife must be given the worst of food and clothing and always treated with contempt. By the time of Arthashastra, women were fined or beaten or cast out totally destitute. If a woman committed adultery while her husband was on a trip, then unless the husband pardoned the erring wife, her nose could be cut off. However, if she committed adultery for the purpose of having a son because her husband had been away too long, then it was not an offence. Death however was never the widespread penalty for an adulterous wife, though it occured in some communities.
All the lawmakers operated under the assumption that it is improper for a woman to be completely independant: "During childhood a woman is subject to her father, during youth to her husband, in old age to her sons". However, the lawmakers were not so much concerned about how her father or sons deal with her; they focused solely on how to regulate a wife's behaviour. A wife must look to her husband's welfare first. Finally the custom degenerated into thinking of the husband as a god. A wife could not indulge in drinking, go on pleasure trips, watch dramatic performances or take part in sports without her husband's permission. She was not supposed to leave the house when her husband was sleeping or drunk. She was fined if she refused to allow the husband to enter the home. She was not to be friends with people her husband did not approve of. If she ran away she lost all rights to her money. She could not enter into any legal contract by herself. However these restrictions were enforced strictly in case of upper and middle castes. According to the the lawmakers, lower caste communities granted their women greater freedom --- from economic reasons if nothing else --- and so such laws were not always applicable to them.
Nevertheless women were granted legal protection so that they were not totally exploited. If a wife left home because her husband had insulted her or mistreated her, she was not guilty. The husband cannot forbid a wife to go to a relative's house in times of death, sickness, danger, and childbirth; if he did he would be fined. The husband can beat her with a bamboo stick only three times on the back; any more strokes or anywhere else is punishable. [Arthashastra also states that if the husband is addicted to prostitutes the wife shall beat the husband in a similar manner. However none of the other lawmakers make any mention of this, and so we can regard it merely as the earliest attempt at gender equality, rather than an actual custom]. Women were allowed to work either with the husband's consent or without it if he was missing or dead. One sage strongly urges that women be allowed to earn money for themselves, since the work and the task of managing finances would leave her too busy to think about illicit affairs. An unmarried or widowed woman could enter into legal contracts. The wife's property was carefully safeguarded. An adulterous wife recieved only half the punishment of her male partner. If a woman has been separated from her family due to war, natural calamity, abducted by thieves, or being left as dead, abandoned during famine, or simply lost during travelling then she could enter into any relationship she pleased with a stranger without being guilty of adultery. However if the woman was of a far higher varna or the whereabouts of her family were known, then she must be restored to the family. We thus see that women were given rights, though they were always in a subservient position.
However, a woman's formal position improved with age: "then thou in advanced age shall speak to the council". As a mother too she enjoyed supremacy. Though she is supposedly under the control of her son, the son must obey her always. Ideally in any direct conflict between father and mother, the son was obliged to take the mother's part. An excommunicated man was free from any obligation to his family except towards his mother, just as his family was free from any obligations towards him. The excommunicated/outcaste need not look after his father, but he must maintain his mother and care for her. The bond between a mother and child was held to be most sacred of all, overriding every other social and sacral obligations: "nothing can repay the debt one owes to one's mother"; "there is no teacher greater than one's mother"; "Mother is a thousand times holier than the father".
The sages also paid attention to intimate details of conjugal life. A husband is not supposed to go to a wife who already has a son, is engaged in some religious ritual, is barren, or whose menstruation has stopped, if the wife does not desire him as well. However, a healthy wife with none of the above restrictions cannot refuse her husband during the ten fixed days of the month when it was felt the chances of conceiving a child is greatest. On the other hand, neither can a husband refuse a wife's advances. If a husband refused to accomodate his wife during these days he promptly incurred a penalty. Even if the husband desires his wife, he cannot approach her on any other day of the month if the wife does not desire him. But if the wife so wishes, then it is the husband's duty to satisfy her, even on the other days. No doubt, there was a gulf between the commands and reality, but at least the woman's right to withold herself with cause and her right to sexual enjoyment (concommitant with trouble for the husband if he could not please her sufficiently!) was recognized.